Retrospective Economic Voting and the Intertemporal Dynamics of Electoral Accountability in the American States

Relative Unemployment, Political Information, and the Job Approval Ratings of State Governors and Legislatures

“…There is no consensus, however, on the effects of state unemployment on gubernatorial or state legislative elections or approval ratings. For governors, some studies find higher state unemployment weakens incumbent electoral performance (Atkeson and Partin 1995; Carsey and Wright 1998; Partin 1995; Svoboda 1995; Wolfers 2002), but others detect either no or mixed effects (Besley and Case 1995; Brown 2010; Chubb 1988; Ebeid and Rodden 2006; Hummel and Rothschild 2014; Kenney and Rice 1983; Krause and Melusky 2014; Leyden and Borrelli 1995; Peltzman 1987; Rodden and Wibbels 2011; Stein 1990; Wright 2012). Similarly several studies find higher state unemployment harms gubernatorial approval (Cohen 2018; Cohen and King 2004; Crew et al 2002; Hansen 1999a, 1999b; Howell and Vanderleeuw 1990; Kelleher and Wolak 2007; King and Cohen 2005; Niemi, Stanley, and Vogel 1995; Orth 2001), but neither Crew and Weiher (1996) nor MacDonald and Sigelman (1999) find such an effect on approval.…”

Studying Governors over Five Decades

“…Frankly, the number of publications on public approval (Hansen 1999; Beyle, Niemi, and Sigelman 2002) and elections provides evidence of how segmented the study of any topic can become and this author pleads guilty of not appreciating the extent and breadth of topics investigated by researchers with regard to election of governors. The research in this area has concluded that several factors affect how a governor’s constituents evaluate them during elections and in their time in office: The electorate evaluates governors on the economic well-being of a state (Adams and Kenny 1989; Stein 1990; Krause and Melusky 2014), but it is not as straightforward as predicted at the national level. Cohen and King (2004) found that as long as the state economy is better than the national economy, a governor is judged favorably regardless of the actual state performance. There is evidence that the electorate will employ noneconomic issues as determinants for voting, for example, crime (Cummins 2009), abortion (Howell and Sims 1993; Cook, Jelen, and Wilcox 1994), and the Affordable Care Act (Konisky and Richardson 2012).…”

“…The electorate evaluates governors on the economic well-being of a state (Adams and Kenny 1989; Stein 1990; Krause and Melusky 2014), but it is not as straightforward as predicted at the national level. Cohen and King (2004) found that as long as the state economy is better than the national economy, a governor is judged favorably regardless of the actual state performance.…”

Mayors, Accomplishments, and Advancement

“…Given that citizens know little about government generally (Delli Carpini and Keeter 1997) and local government specifically (Oliver 2001), ambitious mayors are more likely to run when they have highly salient accomplishments for which they can claim credit. Krause and Melusky (2014) found that the political effects of positive or negative accomplishments are short lived because voters have generally short attention spans. Thus, ambitious politicians need to take advantage of them while they are salient, or time these events appropriate to election cycles.…”

“…Economic development and population growth are priority issues for mayors (e.g., Logan and Molotch 1987) and, regardless of the extent to which they are under the control of local officials, are accomplishments that affect their career trajectories (Arnold and Carnes 2012; Krause and Melusky 2014;McCabe et al 2008;McNitt 2010). We include two measures of growth: population change and economic change (per capita income).…”